Oops Concentration

[Breashios]

So the biggest issue I've had in my games is that my players often don't remember they are maintaining a concentration spell. They'll cast another one in the middle of a battle. At some later turn someone, myself or another player will realize this happened and we'll have to retcon the battle somehow, usually forcing another caster to take the hit.

Example. Haste is cast upon the rogue before the group ambushes an enemy force. On a later turn, the same wizard casts Black Tentacles (which turns out to be VERY effective in the battle). Two turns go by, and when an enemy NPC fails a concentration check, the mistake is realized. We just decided the other wizard (who also has haste, but had no remaining third level slots) cast it at 4th level.

How do you prepare games to ensure this does not happen?

Happens to us about once every 12 hours of play time. Is that just par for the course?

One player suggested we have condition cards and put "Concentrating" in front of the player. Another suggestion was to have two separate spell sheets for each player. One with concentration spells and one without any. When a concentration spell is cast, that spell sheet is handed to the DM until it ends, who will then hand it back.

What do you think?

[Aett_Thorn]

Have each caster have a red index card, or other sort of large, visual reminder, that they have in front of them only when they are concentrating on a spell. That's worked well for us.

[Biggstick]

However it works best for you the DM. I reward my Players who remember small things like that by engaging with them a bit more outside combat.

As for the situation you've described, I wouldn't ret-con what's happened. I'd just have the first concentration spell now no longer be active at the time of the realization. Everything that the PC's have gotten in at that point is on your Rules Expert (or lawyer as some might call the person) for not catching. This person doesn't always have to be the DM, but if you don't have someone at your table you can trust to be that person, it falls to the DM.

This isn't to say that Players should just try to slip stuff past the DM until they realize what's going on. If your Players are constantly abusing this sort of thing, I would have a talk with them outside game to come up with a physical indicator, similar to what your Players have described.

[Ventruenox]

Mistakes can happen occasionally. When it becomes a recurring issue, some sort of aid is needed. This is highly dependent on the player, since everyone thinks differently.

I like to pull from my Magic: the Gathering days and have a spread of index cards sorted by level and unprepared spells in a separate pile. Spells that require concentration have a highlighted code on them. I have one designated spot in front of me for the concentration slot.

[Puh Laden]

How do your players keep track of spells? If they write them on a piece of paper, they should double check if a spell theyre going to cast is concentration and announce it as they cast it. If theyre on cards, they should place the spell card of the spell they're concentrating on apart from the rest and announce it's a concentration spell.

Or at least, that's what I do when I'm a player.

When I'm a DM, I ask every time they cast a spell where I don't remember if it's concentration or not.

[Breashios]

I have no indication any of this is on purpose. Three of my six players are just not up on their characters, the rules, etc. to make my job easy as it could be. I'd complain, but they're such a good group otherwise. Team players, no real conflict between players or characters, stay in role very well, don't hog the stage or slow play too much. Just leave a lot of details to me. Oh, well.

The rogue being on haste for at least two rounds (maybe three) is too much in 5e not to ret-con. I couldn't say for sure, but probably meant the difference of two of three enemy casters remaining in the fight one to two extra rounds that would have put A LOT of damage on the party compared to what they suffered.

[Trampaige]

How are you tracking the duration of effects? We use D10s to track rounds remaining on all duration effects (hypnotic pattern, rage, haste, banishment, etc)

It should be a good enough reminder when someone puts down a second die that concentration is a thing. Since apparently it's a problem and concentration is a gigantic part of being a caster, I'd say go with the red flash card in front of players.

Nearly every duration effect is concentration, anyway, by the time the party is throwing around lvl4 spells they really should "get" it unless somebody is intentionally trying to sneak it in.


edit: Haste is one extra attack per round. Did you give the rogue extra sneak attacks because he was making extra attacks, or something?

[Breashios]

How do your players keep track of spells? If they write them on a piece of paper, they should double check if a spell theyre going to cast is concentration and announce it as they cast it. If theyre on cards, they should place the spell card of the spell they're concentrating on apart from the rest and announce it's a concentration spell.

Or at least, that's what I do when I'm a player.

When I'm a DM, I ask every time they cast a spell where I don't remember if it's concentration or not.

Well, I knew Haste was concentration when he cast it, but there was a break in the game between the pre-combat castings and the combat action. It just didn't click when he cast the second concentration spell that there already was one in play. I knew the Black Tentacles was concentration and every time I damaged him, I made him roll his concentration for that, but the Haste just didn't come to my mind until later. The rogue didn't catch it either and kept using the advantages of Haste, that's all.

[Biggstick]

How are you tracking the duration of effects? We use D10s to track rounds remaining on all duration effects (hypnotic pattern, rage, haste, banishment, etc)

It should be a good enough reminder when someone puts down a second die that concentration is a thing. Since apparently it's a problem and concentration is a gigantic part of being a caster, I'd say go with the red flash card in front of players.

Nearly every duration effect is concentration, anyway, by the time the party is throwing around lvl4 spells they really should "get" it unless somebody is intentionally trying to sneak it in.


edit: Haste is one extra attack per round. Did you give the rogue extra sneak attacks because he was making extra attacks, or something?

In regards to your edit, any Rogue worth their salt will absolutely be getting extra sneak attacks because of Haste. Here's the action economy.

At range with a Short Bow
Hasted weapon attack: Shoot the Short Bow at an enemy who is within 5' of an ally. Hit. Trigger Sneak Attack.
Movement: Move 5-60' away from where you were towards something to gain cover behind.
Bonus Action: Cunning Action Hide (20+ typically)
Action: Ready action. Ready an Attack with your Short Bow and the trigger being the enemy simply existing (or moving their arm, something that will guaranteed trigger).

The Rogue is almost definitely going to be getting off two Sneak Attacks per round with a Hasted action available to them.

[Breashios]

How are you tracking the duration of effects? We use D10s to track rounds remaining on all duration effects (hypnotic pattern, rage, haste, banishment, etc)

It should be a good enough reminder when someone puts down a second die that concentration is a thing. Since apparently it's a problem and concentration is a gigantic part of being a caster, I'd say go with the red flash card in front of players.

Nearly every duration effect is concentration, anyway, by the time the party is throwing around lvl4 spells they really should "get" it unless somebody is intentionally trying to sneak it in.


edit: Haste is one extra attack per round. Did you give the rogue extra sneak attacks because he was making extra attacks, or something?

I only track duration of rounds when it might matter. The fight was one enemy group and I have NEVER run or been a player in a 5e battle that went more than 10 rounds UNLESS the enemy was spread out reinforcements OR the party could have pushed on to something else before time expired (Neither were a possibility in this case and I do the tracking because I don't want them knowing if reinforcements are coming or not.)

So why did Haste matter so much? The druid hit the three enemy mages with an Ice Storm. The rogue (also 5 levels of Champion) made his save due to the haste and then got two of the three mages, dropping the first with two attacks (one backstab), and putting the second low enough for another character to take out with a cantrip (3d8). The lone remaining mage had his fireball counterspelled and died the following round. If I had just one more mage up, I'd have been able to do what the party always does...heal a buddy (leader types don't die in my campaign just because they get to 0 hp) who would then cast their own fireball. With the counterspell used that would be at least one more set of damage to eat, probably more if I could have perpetuated the cycle. No worries for the party. They'd have survived. The Black Tentacles kept to three of the four biggest threats locked down in this case until the wizard finally did fail a concentration check.

[Slipperychicken]

I keep forgetting too. Sometimes I'll remember to make the save in one round, then forget in the next one. It's not intentional, just an honest mistake.



The Rogue is almost definitely going to be getting off two Sneak Attacks per round with a Hasted action available to them.

Read the first sentence of sneak attack. It's once per turn, no matter how many times you can attack or hide.

[Trampaige]

In regards to your edit, any Rogue worth their salt will absolutely be getting extra sneak attacks because of Haste. Here's the action economy.

The Rogue is almost definitely going to be getting off two Sneak Attacks per round with a Hasted action available to them.

I didn't think about readying an action! That is really good action economy. Sorry for assuming you were doing something different.

Yeah, throw the red flag (card) at them whenever they cast a concentration spell.

[Christian]

It can be a lot for the DM to keep track of, all of the monsters in a fight plus the PCs; you really do have to be able to rely on them to do this.

One technique is to not be their crutch on their turn, but just make note of what they're doing. That way, when you catch it but they miss it, you bring it up when it matters. This teaches them to pay more attention. :)

Wizard: I cast Black Tentacles to lock down the battlefield.

DM: OK. Druid, you're next.

Druid: I cast Ice Storm across the middle of the battlefield.

DM: Rogue, you're in that area of effect. Roll a Dexterity saving throw.

Rogue: No worries, I've got Evasion ... 17! Just made it, so no damage. My turn now, right? I sneak attack the wizard, then hide and ready another attack!

DM: Oh, did you think you were still hasted? No, that spell ended when Wizard cast Black Tentacles. What was your saving throw roll again?

Rogue: ... 13, then.

DM: Half damage for you, then. So, what action do you take?

Rogue: ... Death saving throw, apparently.

Druid: Wait! I would never have cast Ice Storm if I'd known that Rogue wasn't Hasted any longer?

DM: Sounds like you and Wizard need to study up a bit on which spells need Concentration, then.

[Tanarii]

I just assume any spell (including cantrips) with duration uses concentration unless the players tell me otherwise. They get used to hearing "plus make a concentration check" or "okay but your Charm Person ended".

Okay, not Charm Person. I know that one isn't. :smallwink:

Of course, there's always that one player with True Strike and Witch Bolt (or Vampiric Touch) that doesn't realize they can't be used together.
(In my opinion they're in for a far worse realization down the line, but I don't tell players not to take spells because I think they are traps. But I have started letting new players change True Strike to something else later on when they finally get buyers remorse.)

[Rynjin]

Read the first sentence of sneak attack. It's once per turn, no matter how many times you can attack or hide.

He literally explained in the post how it works.

As a further clarifier, turn and round are not synonymous. The Rogue's TURN ends, but the round continues. Readied actions happen off-turn.

[Tanarii]

Action: Ready action. Ready an Attack with your Short Bow and the trigger being the enemy simply existing (or moving their arm, something that will guaranteed trigger).If your DM is allowing Ready Actions on triggers like this, you've got a remarkably permissive DM.

[Astofel]

If your DM is allowing Ready Actions on triggers like this, you've got a remarkably permissive DM.

You could always set the trigger to be 'when an ally of mine attacks an enemy that they are within 5 feet of'. Of course, this does have the opportunity cost of not getting Uncanny Dodge, since you're using your reaction for the readied attack.

To the OP, just give them a simple and obvious visual reminder that's hard to miss. If you're visually displaying their initiative to them somehow, via cards or something, add an extra line that says 'Concentrating on: [spell]". That way everyone knows not just that they're concentrating, but also what they're concentrating on, so you don't get situations where someone forgets that a spell requires concentration after casting it, like your Haste and EBT example.

[Biggstick]

If your DM is allowing Ready Actions on triggers like this, you've got a remarkably permissive DM.

Really? The trigger could also be something along the lines of when one of my allies attacks, I will attack the target I previously attacked.

Why is that permissive in regards to the trigger for the spell? How do you use the Ready action in your games? What would a trigger condition sound like for you?

[LordCdrMilitant]

So the biggest issue I've had in my games is that my players often don't remember they are maintaining a concentration spell. They'll cast another one in the middle of a battle. At some later turn someone, myself or another player will realize this happened and we'll have to retcon the battle somehow, usually forcing another caster to take the hit.

Example. Haste is cast upon the rogue before the group ambushes an enemy force. On a later turn, the same wizard casts Black Tentacles (which turns out to be VERY effective in the battle). Two turns go by, and when an enemy NPC fails a concentration check, the mistake is realized. We just decided the other wizard (who also has haste, but had no remaining third level slots) cast it at 4th level.

How do you prepare games to ensure this does not happen?

Happens to us about once every 12 hours of play time. Is that just par for the course?

One player suggested we have condition cards and put "Concentrating" in front of the player. Another suggestion was to have two separate spell sheets for each player. One with concentration spells and one without any. When a concentration spell is cast, that spell sheet is handed to the DM until it ends, who will then hand it back.

What do you think?


I wouldn't burn another mage's spell slot, and would generally just let it go. At the point in time that the mistake is realized, the spell then just immediately ends.

[Tanarii]

Really? The trigger could also be something along the lines of when one of my allies attacks, I will attack the target I previously attacked.That trigger has nothing to do with the ready action, so I'd probably front frown at that one as a DM. (Although now I think about it, there's about a hundred reasons a player might reasonably need to be able to attack when a specifically ally attacks a different enemy.)

Otoh a simple one like "an ally attacks my target" would definitely do the trick. It was the specifics on the trigger ("existing" especially) which made me object.


Why is that permissive in regards to the trigger for the spell? How do you use the Ready action in your games? What would a trigger condition sound like for you?
Typically something fairly dramatic, that has a (usually small) chance of not occurring at all. :smallbiggrin: But seriously, the most common ready action Trigger is movement, especially out of cover or obscuring. Or a spell being cast or feature being used, often ally. Or even, yes, an ally attacking. All of the latter will only fail if the ally can't do it, or changes their mind. Certainly there are plenty of ways for a rogue to trigger a someone-else's-turn Sneak Attack if they really want to.

[Joe the Rat]

I work too hard. I track all of this for my players, remind them of concentration (though it's noted on their spell lists), count down effects on scratch paper, with occasional updates (4th round on Banish, oh here's an elemental in your face).

A saner approach is 3 strikes. Remind them twice, the third time they fall off the ceiling/turn visible/ release the hold on the bad guy.

Status cards are a smart idea. I used to do that for standard buffs and auras. You could take an index card, mark out a 1-10 sequence, and use a marker to track time left. Or the die. That works too.

I play online, so I have status markers attached to tokens. I can just stick a dot on the token for concentration, which gives a visual cue to the players.

[Slipperychicken]

He literally explained in the post how it works.

As a further clarifier, turn and round are not synonymous. The Rogue's TURN ends, but the round continues. Readied actions happen off-turn.

That's what I get for glazing over all the bold text, I guess.

It seems to work per RAW, with the caveat of needing a very permissive reading of readied actions, but it's pure cheese. It looks like the kind of shameless power-grabbing exploit I thought we left behind in 3.5. I wouldn't allow it myself.

[Chugger]

That's what I get for glazing over all the bold text, I guess.

It seems to work per RAW, with the caveat of needing a very permissive reading of readied actions, but it's pure cheese. It looks like the kind of shameless power-grabbing exploit I thought we left behind in 3.5. I wouldn't allow it myself.

It not only works RAW, it's pretty common - at least in my local community. You can call it all the names you want, but at the end of the day a party can either kill x units of monster per adventure or y. If y is bigger than x, maybe that party gets a bit more experience but probably runs more risk - as things can go wrong (someone loses concentration on the haste, for example). It's nothing to lose sleep over. You either adjust for it or (in your case) you don't.

[Biggstick]

That's what I get for glazing over all the bold text, I guess.

It seems to work per RAW, with the caveat of needing a very permissive reading of readied actions, but it's pure cheese. It looks like the kind of shameless power-grabbing exploit I thought we left behind in 3.5. I wouldn't allow it myself.

Using up a Rogue's reaction, costing at least a third level spell slot and someone's concentration, and still requiring the Rogue to have the proper qualifiers for Sneak Attack, makes this more feel like teamwork between two-three Players rather then an exploit.

You want pure cheese, go look at Wish/Simulcran conversations. This is properly utilizing a concentration combat buff spell for combat. Just because you haven't experienced it yet doesn't make it cheese.

[Rynjin]

That's what I get for glazing over all the bold text, I guess.

It seems to work per RAW, with the caveat of needing a very permissive reading of readied actions, but it's pure cheese. It looks like the kind of shameless power-grabbing exploit I thought we left behind in 3.5. I wouldn't allow it myself.

It's slightly cheesy but it's the kind of cheese born of a rule that's arbitrary and serves relatively little game balance purpose, so I'm fine with it myself.

[Nu]

That's what I get for glazing over all the bold text, I guess.

It seems to work per RAW, with the caveat of needing a very permissive reading of readied actions, but it's pure cheese. It looks like the kind of shameless power-grabbing exploit I thought we left behind in 3.5. I wouldn't allow it myself.

This kind of thing is the whole reason they say Sneak Attack is once per turn rather than once per round. It's not cheesy to play the game as intended. If the designers had meant for you to not be able to trigger off-turn and/or multiple Sneak Attacks, they would've designed it as such.

[Strangways]

Once every 12 hours isn’t that bad. There’s a ton of stuff to keep track of in combat. It’s easier for players who only have to keep track of themselves, rather than the DM, who has to keep track of everything, but even for a player it still takes a degree of focus that’s sometimes hard to maintain during a long combat.

Personally, I like status tokens or cards, either custom made or available from various vendors. Status tokens can be placed next to the character’s token and indicate various states, such as invisible, prone, paralyzed, flying etc. You could also have one for concentrating. There are also cards you can give to a player for this purpose, to display in front of the player. In my face-to-face games, it’s very common for the DM to hand out tokens indicating inspiration, then you give the token back to the DM when you use the inspiration. That sort of thing works very well at keep track of a lot of the things that have to be tracked during combat.

[Tanarii]

Once every 12 hours isn’t that bad. There’s a ton of stuff to keep track of in combat.
That's exactly what I thought when I read once every twelve hours. But by my standards, that's about 24 'normal' combats or other really intense situations that have time, stress and danger component (both of which are what I consider an "encounter"). Each taking maybe 15-20 minutes, with at least two an hour. For really complex multi-stage or deadly ones, it might be 12 encounters total over 4x 3hr sessions.

I'm assuming the OP does less combat per play time. I mean, even then I'd expect at least one combat per hour of play. Without that, or some other really intense thing, players start getting really twitchy and start inventing their own outlets for boredom.

[Breashios]

I wouldn't burn another mage's spell slot, and would generally just let it go. At the point in time that the mistake is realized, the spell then just immediately ends.

Except despite the players not paying attention to details like that, they demand the game get ret-conned to make it right. Its some weird thing about most of them. They want to know they earned their victories. I do appreciate that about them.

But all's fair, because they hold me to the same standard.

[Breashios]

That's exactly what I thought when I read once every twelve hours. But by my standards, that's about 24 'normal' combats or other really intense situations that have time, stress and danger component (both of which are what I consider an "encounter"). Each taking maybe 15-20 minutes, with at least two an hour. For really complex multi-stage or deadly ones, it might be 12 encounters total over 4x 3hr sessions.

I'm assuming the OP does less combat per play time. I mean, even then I'd expect at least one combat per hour of play. Without that, or some other really intense thing, players start getting really twitchy and start inventing their own outlets for boredom.

We're at the stage now where it is almost constant combat. We play 5 hour sessions every two weeks. My usual session plan is to have a light combat or challenge as soon as we finish the re-cap (but depends if the story allows), then major reveal or social NPC interaction, or sometimes puzzles if in a dungeon-ish environment, followed by a big combat or string of combats to the end of the session, with treasure assignment and xp right at the end. A lot of times we break in between battles, allowing us to start the next session with a waiting combat. Sometimes we end up to an hour early. One in five sessions the battle at the end goes over our session time, but most players stay until we are done.

[Demonslayer666]

As a DM I track player conditions with my initiative chart. When I call their turn, I have a reminder right there that says what conditions or effects they are under.

Doesn't matter though, I always forget about concentration, because that's an effect I don't ever write down. I need to start doing that...

I even have a sticky note on my DM screen that says "CONCENTRATION CHECKS!!!". :P

[Puh Laden]

So what's your plan for implementing these strategies and do you plan to report how it goes?



This kind of thing is the whole reason they say Sneak Attack is once per turn rather than once per round. It's not cheesy to play the game as intended. If the designers had meant for you to not be able to trigger off-turn and/or multiple Sneak Attacks, they would've designed it as such.

That's not the part where you need a permissive reading of readied attacks, the part that needs a more liberal interpretation is that when you take the ready action you "decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction." The perceivable circumstance of "the creature exists" or "the creature is conscious and hostile" doesn't work because the creature exists on your turn, therefore your reaction would trigger before the end of your turn. You can't make the trigger "my turn ends" either because that's not a perceivable circumstance your character could react to. Now you could make the trigger "the creature does some deliberate activity, such as moving or attacking," but if the creature does nothing, which I think would be bad role-playing on the DM's part in most circumstances, the trigger wouldn't occur. However, I consider even my interpretation a pretty liberal reading as both examples given in the rules are more specific.

[Tanarii]

Now you could make the trigger "the creature does some deliberate activity, such as moving or attacking," but if the creature does nothing, which I think would be bad role-playing on the DM's part in most circumstances, the trigger wouldn't occur. However, I consider even my interpretation a pretty liberal reading as both examples given in the rules are more specific.
That's the rub. Almost anything that's perceivable and in keeping with examples given has at least some small chance of failure.

The most reliable ones are things your allies will do. Of course, if players are coordinating their activities at the table out loud (edit: on the fly, not in advance), the enemies just heard the PCs yelling instructions to each other in-game, and may react accordingly . (YMMV based on how your DM translates table talk into in-game activity. I've always used Angry DM's "smoky mirror" technique. :smallamused: )

[LordCdrMilitant]

That's exactly what I thought when I read once every twelve hours. But by my standards, that's about 24 'normal' combats or other really intense situations that have time, stress and danger component (both of which are what I consider an "encounter"). Each taking maybe 15-20 minutes, with at least two an hour. For really complex multi-stage or deadly ones, it might be 12 encounters total over 4x 3hr sessions.

I'm assuming the OP does less combat per play time. I mean, even then I'd expect at least one combat per hour of play. Without that, or some other really intense thing, players start getting really twitchy and start inventing their own outlets for boredom.

You must get through combats really, really fast. I can manage about 1-2 serious combat encounter per 6 hours of play.

And I have the opposite experience too, because once combat begins, players start to become disinterested after about an hour and a half of combat. Hence, I try to get combat/session down to under a quarter of the session, but it always runs long. There's something about it not being their turn right now that makes them pull out phones and stuff to check their texts.

Not that other activities hold their attention indefinitely, it just seems that they become distracted less quickly when everyone is talking, sorting through information, or planning the next operation.

[Tanarii]

You must get through combats really, really fast. I can manage about 1-2 serious combat encounter per 6 hours of play.5e combat is lightning fast to run. An easy combat takes less than ten minutes. Even a very tactically complicated Deadly one shouldn't take more than an hour. Average for Medium or hard combats is 15-20 minutes.


And I have the opposite experience too, because once combat begins, players start to become disinterested after about an hour and a half of combat.If you're regularly running hour to hour and a half combats, I'm not surprised. Combat needs to be fast paced, and broken up by non-combat, however long it takes.


And if you're letting players look at their phones when it's not their turn (and they're not referencing a phone app to decide what their next turn is), may I suggest a technique for speeding up combat and making sure they're paying attention between turns? Give them 5 seconds to start telling you what they're doing when their turn begins, then tell them they take the Dodge action and don't move. Count down using your fingers.
Once you do that a few times they'll start paying attention.

Edit: making combat as fast paced and intense as (IMO) it should be is too much for some players. They will burn out faster. That's fine. You can run less combats at a faster pace, and still use the extra time for non-combat stuff. You may need to schedule shorter sessions though. My standard is about three hours, with a built-in extra hour for overflow. Three hours is plenty for both player and DM to be ready to stop if the session is intense enough.

Also please don't take anything in my post as harsh criticism. It's only intended to help, if you desire to have shorter combats. If you're cool with everything, cool.

[LordCdrMilitant]

5e combat is lightning fast to run. An easy combat takes less than ten minutes. Even a very tactically complicated Deadly one shouldn't take more than an hour. Average for Medium or hard combats is 15-20 minutes.

If you're regularly running hour to hour and a half combats, I'm not surprised. Combat needs to be fast paced, and broken up by non-combat, however long it takes.


And if you're letting players look at their phones when it's not their turn (and they're not referencing a phone app to decide what their next turn is), may I suggest a technique for speeding up combat and making sure they're paying attention between turns? Give them 5 seconds to start telling you what they're doing when their turn begins, then tell them they take the Dodge action and don't move. Count down using your fingers.
Once you do that a few times they'll start paying attention.

Edit: making combat as fast paced and intense as (IMO) it should be is too much for some players. They will burn out faster. That's fine. You can run less combats at a faster pace, and still use the extra time for non-combat stuff. You may need to schedule shorter sessions though. My standard is about three hours, with a built-in extra hour for overflow. Three hours is plenty for both player and DM to be ready to stop if the session is intense enough.

Also please don't take anything in my post as harsh criticism. It's only intended to help, if you desire to have shorter combats. If you're cool with everything, cool.

My typical combat encounter involves 5-15 hostiles. Sometimes, there are tanks. Enemy airpower is generally a factor of frustration though for players, so I generally don't emphasize it.

I don't have a huge problem with long combats, because I got very negative feedback from having several small encounters. I just try to calibrate it to exactly as long as their attention span for combat.

The problem really gets to be when players do the same thing for the 15th turn. That's what drags combats out, because they're unwilling to use their more limited weapons and ammunition, or are afraid to get close to the assault gun they immobilized because they don't want to tangle with it's crew up close, so they sit and plink for 15 turns.


Actually, that's one of the reasons why I don't really like having to concentrate on spells. "I concentrate" can be pretty boring for a turn.

[Breashios]

So what's your plan for implementing these strategies and do you plan to report how it goes?

I'm planning to both put a red index card folded lengthwise in front of anyone that casts a concentration spell AND have concentration spells on one sheet and non-concentration spells on another sheet for the two wizards. The druid and the sorcerer will just get the cards if needed.

The spell sheet was one of the wizard character players' idea, so I'll do it for him and just so he doesn't feel singled out I'll do it for the other as well.

I'll be happy to report back how it goes, but would that count as resurrecting this thread or is that a socially acceptable case?

[BoringInfoGuy]

Actually, that's one of the reasons why I don't really like having to concentrate on spells. "I concentrate" can be pretty boring for a turn.
I might be missing something here, but why are your players doing nothing but concentrating on a round?

Concentration does not prevent you from taking actions, or even casting spells. So why the boring turns?

[DarkKnightJin]

I'm going to be playing a Cleric, and I've ordered some official Spell Cards. I intend to have the spell I'm Concentrating on be in front of me so I won't forget.
I still might, because new player, but I wanna make an effort, at least.

[Tanarii]

I might be missing something here, but why are your players doing nothing but concentrating on a round?

Concentration does not prevent you from taking actions, or even casting spells. So why the boring turns?
Given his post included stuff about tanks, air power, limited ammunition, and assault gun crews ... I felt like it wasn't even a post about D&D, let alone 5e. :smallbiggrin:

[LordCdrMilitant]

Given his post included stuff about tanks, air power, limited ammunition, and assault gun crews ... I felt like it wasn't even a post about D&D, let alone 5e. :smallbiggrin:

I've had both tanks and airpower in D&D. And railway artillery guns. Actually, my D&D parties see more tanks and stuff that my sci-fi system parties, because a mid-high level D&D character can fight and handle a tank and take the hits where a DH or Traveler party will probably get vaporized on the spot.

However, yes, the immobilized and turret-locked tank was from a recent session of DH, and yes, they sat there and plinked at it with a sniper rifle. That's just the most recent occurrence of this, it happens all the time.


D&D has limited ammunition, though. I make a point to tell players how many arrows and bolts they can recover from an enemy, and how many arrows, bolts, musket balls, loads of powder, and exotic ammunition for their exotic weapon that each enemy was carrying. Siege machine ammunition is always a big deal.



I might be missing something here, but why are your players doing nothing but concentrating on a round?

Concentration does not prevent you from taking actions, or even casting spells. So why the boring turns?

Because all the spells they want to cast are concentration, and they have an obsessions about spending as few non-cantrip spells as possible per encounter.

Even if it's known that they're going to get a long rest, they want to save spell slots with spells in them in case they get attacked in the night, or in case enemy reinforcement arrive, or they end up encircled and need to call a retreat.


5e is good and bad about that. The higher damage cantrips means that plinking away isn't so drastically encounter-lengthening as it could be, but the dramatically decreased number of spell slots means that nobody ever fires off their main spells.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Because all the spells they want to cast are concentration, and they have an obsessions about spending as few non-cantrip spells as possible per encounter.

Even if it's known that they're going to get a long rest, they want to save spell slots with spells in them in case they get attacked in the night, or in case enemy reinforcement arrive, or they end up encircled and need to call a retreat.


5e is good and bad about that. The higher damage cantrips means that plinking away isn't so drastically encounter-lengthening as it could be, but the dramatically decreased number of spell slots means that nobody ever fires off their main spells.

I don't think the problem is the concentration mechanic.

Your players sound like Red Mage Stascowski from early (< episode 100) 8-bit Theature. Back when he hated casting because each spell cast made him that much less versatile.

If the only spells your players want to cast are Concentration or Cantrips, then I guess your players must have concluded that Concentration Spells are the best Spells, and the non Concentration Spells are therefore not worth the slots.

Concentration is to keep spell casters from stacking spell effects and overshadowing non casters at higher levels. That does not mean other Spells are without merit.

5e is - in part - a resource game, certainly. Wasting all your limited use abilities on one encounter is generally a bad idea. On the other hand, extending out every combat by not using your resources appropriately is also a bad idea. The longer combat lasts, the more likely something is going to go south for the party. Such as a lucky crit dropping someone.

Or you can read how White Mage explains it.

https://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/12/12/episode-100-white-mage-makes-it-all-better/

[LordCdrMilitant]

I don't think the problem is the concentration mechanic.

Your players sound like Red Mage Stascowski from early (< episode 100) 8-bit Theature. Back when he hated casting because each spell cast made him that much less versatile.

If the only spells your players want to cast are Concentration or Cantrips, then I guess your players must have concluded that Concentration Spells are the best Spells, and the non Concentration Spells are therefore not worth the slots.

Concentration is to keep spell casters from stacking spell effects and overshadowing non casters at higher levels. That does not mean other Spells are without merit.

5e is - in part - a resource game, certainly. Wasting all your limited use abilities on one encounter is generally a bad idea. On the other hand, extending out every combat by not using your resources appropriately is also a bad idea. The longer combat lasts, the more likely something is going to go south for the party. Such as a lucky crit dropping someone.

Or you can read how White Mage explains it.

https://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/12/12/episode-100-white-mage-makes-it-all-better/

There are non-concentration ones that are popular, especially Sending. But in combat, when wondering what 3rd level spell to cast, if they're already got Haste or Fly active, there's the question of whether to use the slot for Fireball or reserve it for later, reserving it isn't exactly a bad idea, since they might need that slot later, and right now the Fireball wouldn't really do the maximum potential it could anyway, so they'll continue plinking with Cantrips.


Part of the tendency to hoard their resources for contingencies is my fault as a GM, and lately I've been generally moving to avert some of the tendency to hoard spell slots and ammunition and potions and things. In my current DH game, I allow full resupply of ammunition for any weapons the party owns aboard their ship, as well as free frag and krak grenades and meltabombs. In D&D, I've generally stopped having enemy attacks at 3:30 in the morning unless they're heavily telegraphed [which, in retrospect, were probably not a good idea in the first place since it just makes people paranoid and disrupts the spellcasters' ability to re-prepare spells.], and had fewer encounters between rests, so they have "free" spell slots to use for things other than Haste and Fly and Invisibility.


I used to run a bunch of encounters between rests: first you fight the enemy morning patrol, then attack an outpost, then an encounter with a roving hostile in the abandoned tunnel, make camp, then get attacked in the night by an enemy strike force that's been tracking you since the outpost, thus interrupting your rest because you not only had to fight them, you have to move so their morning patrol and reinforcements don't find you, then try to get 8 hours of rest to recycle your abilities and hope you adequately covered your tracks so enemy reinforcements or the morning search party won't find you before you finish resting. Now I generally have 1-2 encounters between rests, and provide space places to stay the night, and heavily telegraph if there's going to be a night attack and set it earlier in the night so they don't waste as much time.

[BoringInfoGuy]

There are non-concentration ones that are popular, especially Sending. But in combat, when wondering what 3rd level spell to cast, if they're already got Haste or Fly active, there's the question of whether to use the slot for Fireball or reserve it for later, reserving it isn't exactly a bad idea, since they might need that slot later, and right now the Fireball wouldn't really do the maximum potential it could anyway, so they'll continue plinking with Cantrips.
Did your players then forget that 1st and 2nd level Spells still exist once 3rd level Spells become available?

As a 5th level Life Cleric, just because I've got Spirit Guardians active does not mean I can't cast Spiritual Weapon for extra attacks (2nd) or even a Guiding Bolt (1st) for both the damage and to help the rogue get his sneak attack damage in.

The question should not be "I wonder what [3rd] level spell I should cast?" but "What is my best use of resources this round".

And the situation you described above still doesn't sound like a problem with the concentration mechanic. If concentration did not exist, would your player suddenly want to blow both their best spell slots on one fight to have haste and flight? Or would they still want to keep as many slots as possible in reserve for that next fight / midnight ambush / whatever?

Edit. Ah, I see what is going on now. Sorry, my response was started before you added the edit.

[Tanarii]

I used to run a bunch of encounters between rests: first you fight the enemy morning patrol, then attack an outpost, then an encounter with a roving hostile in the abandoned tunnel, make camp, then get attacked in the night by an enemy strike force that's been tracking you since the outpost, thus interrupting your rest because you not only had to fight them, you have to move so their morning patrol and reinforcements don't find you, then try to get 8 hours of rest to recycle your abilities and hope you adequately covered your tracks so enemy reinforcements or the morning search party won't find you before you finish resting. Now I generally have 1-2 encounters between rests, and provide space places to stay the night, and heavily telegraph if there's going to be a night attack and set it earlier in the night so they don't waste as much time.
Wow! The way you used to run your games sounds fantastic to me. I'd love to have been in one of those games. :smallbiggrin: No judgement on your players if they don't prefer that style of play. But it sounds right up my alley as a player.

Also, finding out it was DH you were primarily thinking is hilarious. I've been reading all the Only War rules recently after reading the All Guardsman Party, and that's what your post made me think of.

[Asmotherion]

Each player is responsible for his spells/actions.

The Dm can't always monitor everything. When I DM, I let things roll and trust my players... if something is found out not going according to the rules, I make something up that brings balance (in this case, I'd deal some psychic damage to the caster due to the strain of maintain concentration on two spells simultaneusly).

As a dedicated spellcaster, I never have more than 3-4 Concentration spells known/prepared in my spell list, so each time I know which one I am currently concentration on. Since I'm also always at least partially a Warlock, and I always have Hex, I know it's my "Default" option. If it's not Hex, it's an exception, so it's something that will be noticed by me, and I'll also remember.

An other option is to include a small tag next to the spells that says "Concentration". You can then add a checkbox next to each and check/uncheck accordingly (though this will ruin your character sheet in the long run). Or use a Clip, if possible, that's probably the best solution!

[LordCdrMilitant]

Wow! The way you used to run your games sounds fantastic to me. I'd love to have been in one of those games. :smallbiggrin: No judgement on your players if they don't prefer that style of play. But it sounds right up my alley as a player.

Also, finding out it was DH you were primarily thinking is hilarious. I've been reading all the Only War rules recently after reading the All Guardsman Party, and that's what your post made me think of.

I generally have campaigns where the party is in opposition to a distinct organization, so if they go out and massacre a road patrol, the next road patrol will be warier and reinforced, and there will be search parties looking for them. And, of course, they enemy will try to track their movements and attack with better forces late at night, to have the element of surprise as well as catch the party weary and having already spent all their most powerful resources on the larger number of weaker enemies during the day, not to mention interrupt the spell re-preparation.

I remember, a long time ago, I had an group of Shadar-Kai troops attack 6 hours into a long rest, which was considered one of the least fair encounters I ever ran by the party. It had been after a very long day of encounters, so they were thoroughly depleted on abilities and spells. I thought it was the natural consequence of several stupid moves, including ringing an elevator bell that alerted the enemy to their position, failing to cover their tracks, and having the two people keeping watch together sneak off into an enemy trap, but they thought it was excessively nasty and unfair, especially because it interrupted their rest.

I've toned down the attrition, but the enemy will still for sure capitalize on your weaknesses and mistakes. While I've had players complain about how obnoxious my encounters can be, I've also been complemented on the fact that failure and stupidity has consequences.



The key things that made it very frustrating to the players was a combination of factors: Encounters were always at least difficult, encounters got rougher as the day wore on, and the day's encounter schedule was designed to be extremely attritive and capitalize on their attrition. In addition, with so many encounters a day, it took 2-3 sessions to get through a day, and it felt for them like things just dragged on and on and got harder and harder as they got weaker and weaker. In retrospect, I have to say I agree with them, it's easy to see why it's un-fun.

It's important that actions have consequences, though. Players don't mind a particularly nasty encounter if they can see where they went wrong. I always have to evaluate something if I think it's clever, to make sure it's not something the party is going to instead think is just mean.



Anyway, back to concentration, because my GM habits are kind of off topic, I don't think it's a bad mechanic at all. I do think, however, that the biggest failing of 5e is having too few spell slots per day, with really encourages players to hoard them for the most optimal spell and the most optimal time, which causes encounters to drag out considerably as they plink with cantrips. The shortness of spell slots makes concentration spells popular, since it feels like your spell slot is going farther. I'm very lenient in combat, so if they forget they were concentrating on something, I let it slide and count the spell as ending when the realize they forgot they were concentrating.

5e makes concentration super important, in this way, and sometimes I feel it gets to be a point of frustration, because putting invisibility on their rogue would cancel the haste on their fighter.

[coolAlias]

Wow! The way you used to run your games sounds fantastic to me. I'd love to have been in one of those games. :smallbiggrin: No judgement on your players if they don't prefer that style of play. But it sounds right up my alley as a player.

Also, finding out it was DH you were primarily thinking is hilarious. I've been reading all the Only War rules recently after reading the All Guardsman Party, and that's what your post made me think of.
Saw this and have to give another shout out for the All Guardsman Party - an epic read and an epic-sounding campaign.

As for concentration, we forget it occasionally, too, but just roll with it rather than ret-conning anything as it doesn't happen too frequently.

I like the idea of placing in-play spell cards on the table for everyone to see, if you have them, and perhaps highlight those that require concentration if you're not averse to defacing them a little (or attach a small but bright label that can be removed easily). This would work well at my table and I plan on trying it out someday (TM).

[DarkKnightJin]

Saw this and have to give another shout out for the All Guardsman Party - an epic read and an epic-sounding campaign.

As for concentration, we forget it occasionally, too, but just roll with it rather than ret-conning anything as it doesn't happen too frequently.

I like the idea of placing in-play spell cards on the table for everyone to see, if you have them, and perhaps highlight those that require concentration if you're not averse to defacing them a little (or attach a small but bright label that can be removed easily). This would work well at my table and I plan on trying it out someday (TM).

I got my Cleric spell cards in the mail yesterday, and I went through them all to have a look.
They have a lovely red little diamond with a 'c' in the to denote if they require Concentration. Keeping the spell card out where you can see it should be enough, without needing a special marking.

Of course, this ia talking about the official WoTC spell cards, and not any home-made ones you print out. But those you print out should be alright to 'deface' a bit to make it more obvious which require Concentration.

[Breashios]

Yeah, spell cards are not going to work with this group. Aside from the Sorcerer 14 and the Arcane Trickster 9/Fighter 5, there are way too many spells to be flipping through cards. I think it is 19 for the Wizards and Druid, plus all the spells they don't select on a given day. We are just gonna stay with the spell sheets for the rest of this campaign.

That's what everyone seems to like and changing now would really slow everything down as they would have to get used to it. We are too close to the end of this campaign to invest in a change like that. Might be worth trying in a new campaign with fewer full casters.

I did have a Conjurer in the second campaign I was a player in and tried the printable cards. I found I personally was much better off with my spell list on a sheet, than flipping through cards, especially past 6th level.

[Tanarii]

I did have a Conjurer in the second campaign I was a player in and tried the printable cards. I found I personally was much better off with my spell list on a sheet, than flipping through cards, especially past 6th level.
Most players I know that use spell cards have the ones prepared / known spread out in front of them. Either grouped by level, or by function (AoE, direct attack, debuff, etc). They aren't flipping through anything.

Your spell sheet just sounds like a home made and custom tailored to your prerences 'spell card'-like functionality to me.

[Breashios]

Most players I know that use spell cards have the ones prepared / known spread out in front of them. Either grouped by level, or by function (AoE, direct attack, debuff, etc). They aren't flipping through anything.

Your spell sheet just sounds like a home made and custom tailored to your prerences 'spell card'-like functionality to me.

I understand your point, however, just for the spells prepared / known in our group that would be putting 85 cards (plus cards for cantrips - probably not necessary) on the table, plus character sheets, plus dice, plus the space I take up (not much - I have a lower table beside me for stuff - but some). I could put the second 8 ft x 3 ft folding table out, but in our experience it is awkward to have to reach that far across during a typical play session.

I think it would end up being as much of a distraction as it might help in other aspects. (Edit: The clutter that many cards on the table would represent.)

My personal experience with the spell cards was that I did NOT have the table space to spread them out where we played. I had to stack them and flip through them as needed.

[Tanarii]

How do spell sheets not take up just as much space? Am I missing something? do they not have all the full spell printed on them?

Also, you must be playing with a battle mat if having 85 spell cards plus 6 character sheets on a table creates space issues. That certainly changes things.

[Breashios]

How do spell sheets not take up just as much space? Am I missing something? do they not have all the full spell printed on them?

Also, you must be playing with a battle mat if having 85 spell cards plus 6 character sheets on a table creates space issues. That certainly changes things.

All spells for the Sorcerer (who uses the basic published sheet) and Wizards are listed on a single sheet (barely at this point). Just key info on sheet, like dice, rnds and concentration required, check boxes for slots used. Our play requires use of Players Handbook regularly for details of spells we don't know by heart. The Druid uses someone's pdf based character sheet generator and I think his spell list takes three pages, but does have a short description (horribly bad to rely on by experience). The Paladin and Rogue are on yet different styles of character sheets as well. The Paladin currently needs two sheets, and the Rogue just one.

We are playing with a 2' by 2' square grid battle map and use grid easel pad paper. I think one sheet is just short of 2.5 feet by 3.5 feet. I draw the relevant maps ahead of time and reveal the rooms as they enter. A couple of times I've taped two (overlapped) together for a bigger encounter area. The battle map is used for more impromptu encounters with wet erase markers.

So to answer your questions simply: They don't contain all the information that are on the cards. Yes. That is correct. Yes.

[Tanarii]

Oh yeah, that wouldn't work for my table at all. I'd rather have players use spell cards than PHB any day of the week. Looking in the PHb for the details of each spell every single time is something I've found absolutely murders pacing. And my experience is it is almost every single time, or at least half the time. Spell cards having the complete text, or failing that an online database / app or something, are absolutely required as far as I'm concerned.

No PhBs allowed on the table in my games. Keep them under the table or something, I'll say if they're needed. It's a between game reference manual, not an active game-play reference system.

[DarkKnightJin]

Oh yeah, that wouldn't work for my table at all. I'd rather have players use spell cards than PHB any day of the week. Looking in the PHb for the details of each spell every single time is something I've found absolutely murders pacing. And my experience is it is almost every single time, or at least half the time. Spell cards having the complete text, or failing that an online database / app or something, are absolutely required as far as I'm concerned.

No PhBs allowed on the table in my games. Keep them under the table or something, I'll say if they're needed. It's a between game reference manual, not an active game-play reference system.

I wouldn't mind too much if players were checking stuff in the PHB in prep for their turn.
But, I'm pretty sure that they don't. Because people are weird like that.

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't mind too much if players were checking stuff in the PHB in prep for their turn.
But, I'm pretty sure that they don't. Because people are weird like that."I know, I'll just generally not pay attention to what's going on until my turn comes around. Play around with my character sheet, dice, and phone if that's allowed. Think about the next character I make. That's a productive use of my game time."

I can understand it when you're in a 5 player game and each player is taking 2 minutes to take their turn, plus the DM taking 5 for the enemies, driving it up to 15 minutes for a turn, or an hour for a 4 round combat. That's boring. And players looking up spells on their turn is boring for the other players.

But when each player is expected to average less than 30 seconds and the DM takes no more than 2 minutes, your turn is going to be up again in no time and you need to know exactly what your spells do when your turn comes around.

[Breashios]

I can understand it when you're in a 5 player game and each player is taking 2 minutes to take their turn, plus the DM taking 5 for the enemies, driving it up to 15 minutes for a turn, or an hour for a 4 round combat. That's boring. And players looking up spells on their turn is boring for the other players.

But when each player is expected to average less than 30 seconds and the DM takes no more than 2 minutes, your turn is going to be up again in no time and you need to know exactly what your spells do when your turn comes around.

For us it is six players and we fall somewhere between 30 seconds and a minute per turn. Usually it is move called out, someone moves the mini, dice rolled, defender looked at, if applicable, its dice rolled, record damage and/or effect, if multiple attacks, next dice rolled...player 1 turn ends, next initiative begins. Then there are the once or twice a round I'll have to clear up confusion for someone, or correct them on how their ability or spell actually works. That's where the time really gets eaten up.

I think my knowledge proves correct 95% of the time I am questioned, but three of our players are wrong about a quarter of the time they try something other than a straight attack, basic cantrip or fireball like spell. Session before last the other highly knowledgeable player made a major mistake on a spell, so even then some backtracking.

So to the other point, we don't look at the PHB on every round, but when there is a question or a character is about to cast a spell the player doesn't know well enough they do have to reference it or should. What usually happens is they try to use a spell incorrectly, I correct them and then they look it up.

Thing is I usually know all the spells they've selected for that game day before the battle and study them, so they really don't have to look it up in the book, EXCEPT they often don't believe me. So I just let them look it up and see I am right. Unfortunately, we go back to that 95%. Only one of the players has learned to say, "Ok, I'll do it that way this time. Can we research that between games?"

The rest just look it up and say, "Oh, I guess you're right this time." Look they are a great group to play with. Why they don't want to just play - have to get it right every time, I don't know. That is their thing I guess. And unfortunately I am wrong about 5% of the time.

[Isaire]

My personal experience with the spell cards was that I did NOT have the table space to spread them out where we played. I had to stack them and flip through them as needed.

What you can do is buy a folder which has transparent slots you can put the cards into, with just the spells you have by level. Then it just takes up the space of a folder. Though I guess it's a pain to have to take out the card for the spell you want to concentrate on each time..

[DarkKnightJin]

What you can do is buy a folder which has transparent slots you can put the cards into, with just the spells you have by level. Then it just takes up the space of a folder. Though I guess it's a pain to have to take out the card for the spell you want to concentrate on each time..

Dry erase marker on the clear cover to note you're Concentrating on that spell?
Could do a similar thing for HP and other things that get expended and refreshed on a short/long rest.

Just make sure it doesn't leave a mark so you can't see through it at some point. And make damn sure that nobody 'accidentally' brings permanent marker.

[Breashios]

We played and here are the results:

So I had planned to do the red note card in front a player whose character was concentrating on a spell. I have the notecards somewhere and probably could have found them if I had spent less than 10 minutes looking for them, but life happened and I ended up playing with my 10 month old on my lap or crawling around the room, which meant I had other priorities setting up the table and such and didn't get that far before people started arriving.

I did print out the two wizards' spell lists (no spell descriptions) with concentration spells on one page and non-concentration spells on a separate page. We did not have any problem with concentration spells during the session.

It was a cool session though, since the one wizard got off Reverse Gravity, pounded most of the enemy into the ceiling between 50 and 80 feet up, then dropped concentration at the end of his second turn for a repeat performance.

Seeing the spells on two separate pages was a eye-opening experience for the player of the abjuration wizard (the one that had suggested this solution). He hadn't realized over half of the spells in his spell book required concentration. Further he noted over two thirds of the spells he had selected for that day were concentration. He hadn't realized that. Now he understood why he was having so much trouble doing creative things in combat.

I think splitting the spells up is helpful. I can see how it will help me in planning chosen spells for certain classes. I know you can see it on the cards and so forth, but if I'm sticking to pages, I think this will work well for me as well.

[Tanarii]

Seeing the spells on two separate pages was a eye-opening experience for the player of the abjuration wizard (the one that had suggested this solution). He hadn't realized over half of the spells in his spell book required concentration. Further he noted over two thirds of the spells he had selected for that day were concentration. He hadn't realized that. Now he understood why he was having so much trouble doing creative things in combat.
I've had various warlock and cleric players run into this because they weren't paying close attention a bunch of times. Personally I always mark concentration spells (c) next to the names, and (+) next to the upcastable ones, and * the ritual ones, on my spell lists.

I didn't make it clear earlier, but I do think a summary spell list is a good idea, for quick at a glance reference. I just feel spell cards beat PHB for more detailed reference of spell text, which I find to be commonly needed.

Anyway, glad to hear it worked out!